Multi/dual-class and other things that don't make sense

Remove all ads!

Ok, we'll try to do these in order...

I can understand no druid/mage; magic disrupts
the "natural" order of things, which a druid would find loathsome, so I don't think any TRUE druid would dedicate himself to such a filthy art. Plus if you could do druid mage, there's no need for an avenger kit.

A theif is a class that is based more or less on cities. All these people and their accumulative wealth, as Yoshimo would say. A ranger is a class based more or less on wilderness. He tends to like solitude, trees and animals. The two classes are really mutually exclusive ethos wise; it doesn't make much sense from a roleplaying standpoint to have a character who can be both... unless he has multiple personalities, I suppose.

Fighters are supposed to be more adaptive and less specialized then their barbarian and paladin ilk. Barbarians are savage and undisciplined, therefore unable to learn the specialized skills of another class. Paladins are so dedicated to helping old ladies across streets, kittens out of trees, and whatnot, that they would feel no need to pursue another class. It wouldn't be in their character.

I suppose the point of adding kits would have been to give your class in BG1 an extension of sorts. Sort of like in BG1, you were just a normal, everyday fighter, but in BG2 you specialized in the ability to deal(and recieve) sick amounts of damage and "evolved" into a kensai. If you look at it in that regard, your first class would logically be your kit class. Plus, there are simply game balance issues to look at here, since you have to choose your kit at the beginning of character creation, and have to dual class sometime in the game, so if you could dual into a kit then you could have mulitple kit combinations. I'm sure many of those would be quite ridiculous.

As I've said, pallys and barbarians shouldn't be allowed to dual (or at the very least, if pallys did, they should lose their pallypowers). Monks would be the same as paladins. Anyway, why would I dual to a fighter or mage when I could have the satifaction of taking apart a beholder with my bare hands? It's a style thing. As for a sorceror... uh... there is no real reason? I mean, just being born with magic shouldn't deny you the right to also be a fighter or theif or whatever. You can just pop off fireballs whenever the fancy strikes you. And technically, aren't bards really fighter/mage/theifs anyway? If he specializes more in one, he loses some of another, which would pretty much make him less of a jack of all trade sort of deal.

 

Cleric/thief could make sense to me, but I think they should be evil (evil god that might allow thieving). I still would hate the class, because I think thieves should have edged or ranged weapons.
Ranger/thief wouldn't make sense either.

I think sorcerers should have almost the same dual- and multiclassing options as mages. Except I think one should not be able to dualclass to a sorcerer (a sorc is born with magic, can't learn that).
The same goes for barbarians. I think they should be able to multiclass and dualclass. But you shouldn't be able to dualclass to them. You don't learn to be a barbarian. You can learn how to fight, but not how to be a savage.
Also I think a cleric should be able to dual or multiclass with paladins and monks. Although the paladin is already a cleric/fighter, I think it would be nice to have all the cleric spells in a paladin.
Monks tend to be highly religous, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to be clerics.

The topic-starter also mentioned something about why a second class can't be a kit.
I think this is because of balancing reasons.

Especially for multiclass. Imagine how strong a kensai/thief multiclass would be. You only need the thief part for backstabbing and use any item and the kensai would be almost as strong as a pure one, but with armor and backstab.

 

ranger/druids would be cool to multi-class. Druids in themselves are awesome.

 

Woah. Almost a decade long resurrection of a thread. Is that a record?

The removal of these silly restrictions is one of the main reasons I always preferred IceWind Dale II over Baldurs Gate II.

 

True however Rnager/druid was a valid multiclass option in several 2e books oddly enough such as in the ranger handbook.

 

Very true. I think there may have been a special rule about them and, if not, they can both be so nature focused it would make sense to have a dual-class combination.

Don't forget the game sometimes diverges from 2nd edition rules (not alway but sometimes).

BG2 diverged from BG1 and 2nd Edition by not letting a human dual-class into a specialist mage.

(In BG1 I have a cleric/enchanter and a fighter/necromancer which both dual-classed to their mage class).